Is There such a reality as non-X for any and every X?

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

wtf
Posts: 833
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: Is There such a reality as non-X for any and every X?

Post by wtf » Sat May 18, 2019 7:00 am

Do you mean is there a world in which 2 + 2 could be other than 4?

And secondly, how many realities do you think there are? Perhaps this is the only one, making your question meaningless. Caterpillars turn into butterflies in the only world there is. There isn't any world where caterpillars don't turn into butterflies.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1403
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Is There such a reality as non-X for any and every X?

Post by Scott Mayers » Sat May 18, 2019 2:03 pm

wtf wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 7:00 am
Do you mean is there a world in which 2 + 2 could be other than 4?

And secondly, how many realities do you think there are? Perhaps this is the only one, making your question meaningless. Caterpillars turn into butterflies in the only world there is. There isn't any world where caterpillars don't turn into butterflies.
Yes. But those worlds may not themselves be 'consistent' nor 'complete' to persist beyond fragments.

What matters first for this question is to determine not whether this is a truism. Then it can be made sense of if our world just happens to be of a "patterned" one, of which there are many. Some will maintain being consistent throughout while others (most) would not.

If it troubles you, think of the what it implies about what is "impossible". If absolutely everything exists in Totality, then it has to include what is 'impossible'. Thus for a world like ours, what is consistent also defines patterns that are not 'fit' to being patterned as "impossible". This doesn't mean that what we believe maps to a possibility in our exclusive world. Thus, just because this can be a tautological truth of Totality as a whole, it doesn't mean that we can impose whatever we imagine to be true of where we are because limits are just as much real when all possibilities exist.

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 588
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Is There such a reality as non-X for any and every X?

Post by RCSaunders » Sat May 18, 2019 5:18 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 8:24 am
As the title is asking, does the statement that....

There is such a reality as non-X for any and every X.

...stand true universally? (as a Tautology for reality)
There is a huge logical mistake here. Of course there is a non-X for every X. In fact there are an infinity of them. For every X, everything else is a non-X.

I think you may be asking if for every X there is some kind of compliment, or converse, or negative form of X or anti-X; in which case the answer is no.

commonsense
Posts: 1227
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Is There such a reality as non-X for any and every X?

Post by commonsense » Sat May 18, 2019 9:26 pm

Impenitent wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 3:00 am
commonsense wrote:
Thu May 16, 2019 4:11 pm
Impenitent wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 11:05 pm
the tic tac toe board shows 5 Xs and only 4 non-Xs

-Imp
True, but let’s consider this:

For every tic-tac-toe board with 5 Xs there is a tic-tac-toe board with 5 non-Xs.

Are we to look at the contents or the totality?
for a tic-tac-toe board, the ratio is always 5:4 as there are only 9 spaces

-Imp
Yes, of course.

I’m just saying that one board may have a 5:4 ratio and another board may have a 4:5 ratio. In other words, there can exist a board (the one with 5:4) and a “non-board” (the one that does not have the 5:4 ratio).

That is why I ask if we should be concerned with the container (the board) or the contents (the X’s and O’s).

wtf
Posts: 833
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: Is There such a reality as non-X for any and every X?

Post by wtf » Sat May 18, 2019 10:01 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 2:03 pm


Yes. But those worlds may not themselves be 'consistent' nor 'complete' to persist beyond fragments.
What do you mean by consistent and complete as applied to worlds? Aren't you aware that those terms apply to formal symbolic systems and NOT to models of those systems? You' are as confused on this point as our friend Pete in that other thread. Unless you can explain what you mean.

Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 2:03 pm
What matters first for this question is to determine not whether this is a truism. Then it can be made sense of if our world just happens to be of a "patterned" one, of which there are many. Some will maintain being consistent throughout while others (most) would not.
I could not discern your meaning. Again the same misuse of the technical term "consistent." What is a patterned world?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 2:03 pm
If it troubles you, think of the what it implies about what is "impossible". If absolutely everything exists in Totality, then it has to include what is 'impossible'.
The only thing that troubles me is this word salad. What on earth are you trying to say? Speak English please. What is Totality and why is it capitalized? Where are you coming from? I asked you a couple of straightforward questions to discern the intention of your questions and your reply is frankly incoherent.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 2:03 pm
Thus for a world like ours, what is consistent also defines patterns that are not 'fit' to being patterned as "impossible".
Patterns not fit to be patterned. Is this sewing class?
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 2:03 pm
This doesn't mean that what we believe maps to a possibility in our exclusive world. Thus, just because this can be a tautological truth of Totality as a whole, it doesn't mean that we can impose whatever we imagine to be true of where we are because limits are just as much real when all possibilities exist.
Word salad. Doesn't refer to anything sensible.

Sorry I bothered you. You've got a few other respondents going here so I won't further spoil your fun.

User avatar
A_Seagull
Posts: 871
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:09 pm

Re: Is There such a reality as non-X for any and every X?

Post by A_Seagull » Sun May 19, 2019 10:21 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 8:24 am
As the title is asking, does the statement that....

There is such a reality as non-X for any and every X.

...stand true universally? (as a Tautology for reality)
Are you able to show that you are doing something more than playing with words? If not, your 'reality' can never be anything more than a fantasy reality.

commonsense
Posts: 1227
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Is There such a reality as non-X for any and every X?

Post by commonsense » Wed May 22, 2019 2:09 pm

If you can imagine it so, reality can be so.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1403
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Is There such a reality as non-X for any and every X?

Post by Scott Mayers » Sat May 25, 2019 3:30 pm

RCSaunders wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 5:18 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 8:24 am
As the title is asking, does the statement that....

There is such a reality as non-X for any and every X.

...stand true universally? (as a Tautology for reality)
There is a huge logical mistake here. Of course there is a non-X for every X. In fact there are an infinity of them. For every X, everything else is a non-X.

I think you may be asking if for every X there is some kind of compliment, or converse, or negative form of X or anti-X; in which case the answer is no.
I clarified that a 'complement' is what is understood. I'm not sure of your own 'no' in the last sentence. I'm not merely looking for a disagreement but some expansion on why SHOULD you assert a 'no'. What kind of example can you think of for a counter?

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1403
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Is There such a reality as non-X for any and every X?

Post by Scott Mayers » Sat May 25, 2019 4:09 pm

wtf wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 10:01 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 2:03 pm


Yes. But those worlds may not themselves be 'consistent' nor 'complete' to persist beyond fragments.
What do you mean by consistent and complete as applied to worlds? Aren't you aware that those terms apply to formal symbolic systems and NOT to models of those systems? You' are as confused on this point as our friend Pete in that other thread. Unless you can explain what you mean.
That for all worlds that HAVE consistency and completeness, these would be ones that survive (persist) through being sufficiently fit to have pattern. If the 'laws of physics' are LAWS, they are required to be consistent and cover its domain or its Universe. This means that you can reverse the interpretation of physics laws as merely worlds that are patterns that fit completely with some consistent set in a way that exhausts all possibilities from any point in time and space OF that world.

That is, physics is not governed with respect to Totality but sorted out as those data sets of information that HAVE a consistent pattern such that "laws" (AS patterns) CAN be discovered to explain each and every action in that specific 'world' EXHAUSTIVELY on all parts in it (ie complete).
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 2:03 pm
What matters first for this question is to determine not whether this is a truism. Then it can be made sense of if our world just happens to be of a "patterned" one, of which there are many. Some will maintain being consistent throughout while others (most) would not.
I could not discern your meaning. Again the same misuse of the technical term "consistent." What is a patterned world?
"consistent" means 'with same throughout'. In context here, it means that if we have a physics law of some world, that 'law' has to remain valid of the 'logic of that Universe' or it would no longer be 'law.' Unlike language rules where we have exceptions, physics rules cannot exist chaotically (without pattern) without losing their meaning. They also have to predict a pattern uniquely for EACH allowable input (its domain) in principle or would still permit laws to be 'broken'.

If this doesn't suffice, you require suggesting a counter that I might be able to accept or challenge.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 2:03 pm
If it troubles you, think of the what it implies about what is "impossible". If absolutely everything exists in Totality, then it has to include what is 'impossible'.
The only thing that troubles me is this word salad. What on earth are you trying to say? Speak English please. What is Totality and why is it capitalized? Where are you coming from? I asked you a couple of straightforward questions to discern the intention of your questions and your reply is frankly incoherent.
It is not easy to express in a way that can appeal to everyone given different backgrounds. But I'm speaking very clearly and this only tells me that YOU do not follow. Own your own misunderstanding. This doesn't help me to determine what you understand but just THAT you don't understand without qualification.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 2:03 pm
Thus for a world like ours, what is consistent also defines patterns that are not 'fit' to being patterned as "impossible".
Patterns not fit to be patterned. Is this sewing class?
I'm coming from the perspective of thinking of reality as mere data and so 'patterns' are the means to express how reality CAN have worlds that are consistent and complete along with worlds that are not. A quilt or blanket made that has pattern and is complete is as equally applicable to model this. There will be worlds that are like incomplete knitting projects or blankets that are not functional AS 'blankets'. These 'worlds' are real but lack functionality and so are ones that don't get 'used' for worlds like our particular type of Universe.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 2:03 pm
This doesn't mean that what we believe maps to a possibility in our exclusive world. Thus, just because this can be a tautological truth of Totality as a whole, it doesn't mean that we can impose whatever we imagine to be true of where we are because limits are just as much real when all possibilities exist.
Word salad. Doesn't refer to anything sensible.

Sorry I bothered you. You've got a few other respondents going here so I won't further spoil your fun.
I'm very clear here. If it is 'salad' to you, may I suggest adding your own dressing to make it taste better? I can't force you to eat anything here.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1403
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Is There such a reality as non-X for any and every X?

Post by Scott Mayers » Sat May 25, 2019 4:18 pm

A_Seagull wrote:
Sun May 19, 2019 10:21 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 8:24 am
As the title is asking, does the statement that....

There is such a reality as non-X for any and every X.

...stand true universally? (as a Tautology for reality)
Are you able to show that you are doing something more than playing with words? If not, your 'reality' can never be anything more than a fantasy reality.
A 'fantasy' is still a reality in this sense. It is just a fragment or incomplete picture of the whole reality in a consistent way. If the words are compelling, AND I am NOT expressing any mystical meaning upon anything here, you should be able to infer something about reality.

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 588
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Is There such a reality as non-X for any and every X?

Post by RCSaunders » Sat May 25, 2019 8:18 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 3:30 pm
I clarified that a 'complement' is what is understood.

I"m sorry, Scott, that I missed that.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 3:30 pm
I'm not sure of your own 'no' in the last sentence. I'm not merely looking for a disagreement but some expansion on why SHOULD you assert a 'no'. What kind of example can you think of for a counter?
I'm not sure how I could give an example of that which I do not believe exists. But I think I can explain my, "no."

In the directly perceived world, sometime called the macro world, every existent is unique, and I think it is obvious there cannot be any exact complements of physical entities. There cannot be an anti-Scott, for example, or and an anti-automobile. There are a few rare things that are in many ways opposites or compliments. It is the whole idea of sex in plumbing and electronic connections, but I hardly thing that is what you mean.

In the subatomic world there are some things which are considered complements but they are compliments as classes, not as individuals. There is, at least in the form of the models of atom and sub-atomic particles, anti- forms of almost everything, anti-matter, anti-electrons, anti-protons, etc. but there no specific anti-particle for every other particle.

Finally, there is just no reason to suppose that for everything there is an opposite. non-X does not mean the opposite or complement of X, it means whatever is not X. This is a problem of abstract symbolic logic. Until a symbol actually represents something, an existent or event, it has no real meaning. Make X a cow, a book, a person, a riot, or a flame and then imagine what the complement or opposite or non-cow, book, person, riot, or flame would be.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1403
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Is There such a reality as non-X for any and every X?

Post by Scott Mayers » Sun May 26, 2019 9:43 am

RCSaunders wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 8:18 pm
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 3:30 pm
I clarified that a 'complement' is what is understood.

I"m sorry, Scott, that I missed that.
Scott Mayers wrote:
Sat May 25, 2019 3:30 pm
I'm not sure of your own 'no' in the last sentence. I'm not merely looking for a disagreement but some expansion on why SHOULD you assert a 'no'. What kind of example can you think of for a counter?
I'm not sure how I could give an example of that which I do not believe exists. But I think I can explain my, "no."

In the directly perceived world, sometime called the macro world, every existent is unique, and I think it is obvious there cannot be any exact complements of physical entities. There cannot be an anti-Scott, for example, or and an anti-automobile. There are a few rare things that are in many ways opposites or compliments. It is the whole idea of sex in plumbing and electronic connections, but I hardly thing that is what you mean.

In the subatomic world there are some things which are considered complements but they are compliments as classes, not as individuals. There is, at least in the form of the models of atom and sub-atomic particles, anti- forms of almost everything, anti-matter, anti-electrons, anti-protons, etc. but there no specific anti-particle for every other particle.

Finally, there is just no reason to suppose that for everything there is an opposite. non-X does not mean the opposite or complement of X, it means whatever is not X. This is a problem of abstract symbolic logic. Until a symbol actually represents something, an existent or event, it has no real meaning. Make X a cow, a book, a person, a riot, or a flame and then imagine what the complement or opposite or non-cow, book, person, riot, or flame would be.
You mistake the meaning of a 'complement' (not 'compliment', by the way). The meaning of the "complement of X", for whatever X may be, is ANYTHING that is not-X. "Not" does not equate to "Non-", although when we use binary valued concepts such as either true or false exclusively, what is 'not-X' can BE equivalent to 'non-X'. There are many kinds of negation type terms. "Anti-" to me means "in direct opposition to" as an action uniquely against something else. I believe it is used in QM to define particles of identical form that operate in some 'active' way that but in some uniquely opposing "direction". For example, I am an atheist. But this doesn't necessarily mean an atheist is "anti-theist", meaning an equal form of belief in direct opposition to some presumed default type of theist.

So treat "Non-X" to mean "the class of all reality apart from X" or "all (or possibly any) not-Xs". What you also may have misinterpreted here is that a Universal class can be implicitly understood in some context such that we then mean that for some Universe, U, whatever X can be inside it, the complement of it is (U - X). Some have been more particular in the past this way but we ignore mentioning the Universal class or set we (domain) of the things we are discussing.

For my point here, take anything in Totality, label it X, then there exists something other than X such that (Totality - X) is that. This means that AT LEAST some-not-X exists in Totality for every X.

Even if you substitute X = Totality, for this X, then the empty set IS the complement.

Atla
Posts: 2490
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: Is There such a reality as non-X for any and every X?

Post by Atla » Sun May 26, 2019 10:00 am

How come you don't realize that your entire thinking is backwards by the way?

All we can do is percieve reality first, and then try to come up with theories that fit it.

You come up with a theory first, and than expect reality to behave accordingly. For example why would your ideas about consistency have anything to do with the actual reality?

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 588
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Is There such a reality as non-X for any and every X?

Post by RCSaunders » Sun May 26, 2019 12:43 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 9:43 am
You mistake the meaning of a 'complement' (not 'compliment', by the way).
Not the meaning, the spelling. Thanks for pointing it out.

You originally asked, "Is There such a reality as non-X for any and every X?" I answered the question and gave my reasons for that answer. If you are not satisfied with that, then you aren't. I think the opposite view is unrealistic, but can't see that it does any harm, except to one's epistemology.

Thanks for the interesting conversation.

Scott Mayers
Posts: 1403
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada

Re: Is There such a reality as non-X for any and every X?

Post by Scott Mayers » Mon May 27, 2019 2:27 pm

Atla wrote:
Sun May 26, 2019 10:00 am
How come you don't realize that your entire thinking is backwards by the way?

All we can do is percieve reality first, and then try to come up with theories that fit it.

You come up with a theory first, and than expect reality to behave accordingly. For example why would your ideas about consistency have anything to do with the actual reality?
I believe both are valuable. We begin from where we are and induce what MAY be true using our senses seeking patterns. Then we would guess at what reality's logic (its formulas and/or laws), then, where possible test it going forward. Science is mainly of this role.

Reality as a whole though to me has to be something that lacks a 'creator', god, or magical reality at its 'origins'. This means that there has to be some way to figure out how reality can be 'reconstructed' without anything at all. This means that under some ideal conditions, an intellectual mind, ....more advanced than no mind at all,...should have the capacity to figure out how reality can be reconstructed from literally nothing. So, my interest is to seek a means to determine this 'bottom up', or, what may be called, "foundationally".

I HAVE done this to a great degree. I am not complete with my own theory on all the details yet but have found out how you can do this when you take an approach through logic alone. But you CAN determine this if you begin with reasoning on certain tautologies such as this thread's questions and take an approach similar to the set theories.

You also have to try to do this with the least bias to 'special' assumptions (like religious origin myths) and by "reinventing the wheel" (if you can) by trying to place yourself in the minds of the original thinking and processes of determining reality that others have. (something not normally practical for most people to reasonably do)

You are free to disagree with this process. But unless some law (human/political) is made to prevent me from doing this, what reason SHOULD restrict me from this approach? I certainly know it works. Whether I can communicate it (say, through formal theory and theorems) is a distinct challenge though. And this is why I'm at least trying here.

To the last part of your question, if you want to prove something CAN be true about reality, you CAN demonstrate it step by step beginning with a 'theory'. This is like one presuming some program can be created to do something by first dealing with the logic of the computer programming. If you have a 'theory' of an effective program, you need to reconstruct the "machine" first, then demonstrate how it can be used to create/recreate a program that mimics reality. If the program succeeds, this is the 'proof' of the possibility of what may be true by the theory you propose. If you can find a way to CLOSE this (completeness and consistency) by some standard, you CAN rule out all other possibilities and be left with whatever theory stands as an explanation that maps to reality.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests